Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Western Engineering Students' Societies Team

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. kingboyk 11:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Western Engineering Students' Societies Team

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Not-notable, doesn't merit inclusion in an encyclopedia. Delete Ardenn 05:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. While there is a continuing debate about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries, current consensus is that Wikipedia articles are not:

1. Lists of Frequently Asked Questions. Wikipedia articles should not list FAQs. Instead, format the information provided as neutral prose within the appropriate article(s). You may want to consider contributing FAQ lists to Wikibooks.
2. Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as quotations, aphorisms or persons. If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote. Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic. Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference.
3. Travel guides. An article on Paris should mention landmarks such as the Eiffel Tower and the Louvre, but not the telephone number or street address of your favorite hotel or the price of a café au lait on the Champs-Élysées. Such details are, however, very welcome at Wikitravel, but note that due to license incompatibility you cannot copy content wholesale unless you are the copyright holder.
4. Memorials. It may be sad when people die, but Wikipedia is not the place to honor them. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must have a claim to fame besides being fondly remembered by their friends and relatives.
5. News reports. Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories (however, our sister project Wikinews does exactly that). Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources since we can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known. See current events for examples.
6. Genealogical entries, or phonebook entries. Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of fame, achievement, or perhaps notoriety. One measure of achievement is whether someone has been featured in several external sources (on or off-line). Relatively unimportant people may be mentioned within other articles (e.g. Ronald Gay in Persecution of gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and the transgendered). See m:Wikipeople for a proposed genealogical/biographical dictionary project.
7. Directories, directory entries, or a resource for conducting business. For example, an article on a radio station generally shouldn't list upcoming events, current promotions, phone numbers, etc. (although mention of major events or promotions may be acceptable). Furthermore, the Talk pages associated with an article are for talking about the article, not for conducting the business of the topic of the article.
8. Instruction manuals - while Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice ( legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes. Wikibooks is a Wikipedia sister-project which is better suited for such things. Note that this does not apply to the Wikipedia: namespace, where "how-to"s relevant to editing Wikipedia itself are appropriate, such as Wikipedia:How to draw a diagram with Dia.

Please explain how this site falls in these categorys. When in doubt, Keep--Nick Dillinger 09:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Why is this here? Is someone requesting this Wikipolicy be deleted? I don't get it. 23skidoo 15:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

It is part of the comment by Nick Dillinger for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Western Engineering Students' Societies Team, it just looks like it is a separate AfD.--blue520 15:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

None of these fit this page. ryanc 22:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• A fine example of wikilawyering, but more to the point, the organization does not appear to the Notable through reference to Verifiable sources. It is not enough for you to think your organization is important. If someone else has thought it was important, and written about it, then you can summarize those reports here. Wikipedia is a secondary source, not a primary source. Delete Thatcher131 16:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Hint there, Nicky; all we need to know is in the first two sentences of that policy. Whether a citation goes on to hit one of the subcategories isn't necessarily relevant. Delete per nom. RGTraynor 17:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • The principles of Wikipedia are being corrupted by rampant deletionists. Check here for why the definition of notability is constantly misinterpretted. 'Cruft' is not a bad thing in an encyclopedia not constricted by paper!--Nick Dillinger 18:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: The principles of Wikipedia are interpreted and put into place by consensus, and that consensus is firm on the undesirability of cruft. Cruft is certainly a bad thing in any encyclopedia striving to be accessible and useful. Now if you want random infinite collectors of trivial information, they already exist; they're called "search engines." They're about as useful as Wikipedia would be if we let in anything anyone wanted to post. RGTraynor 19:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete nn club. --Hetar 18:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable, though I've seen better Wikilawyering. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 21:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep WESST is a notable orgainzation. It represents 8 schools on the national level to CFES. WEC is a huge engineering competition that gathers thousands of engineers together. [WEC] is put on by WESST. WEC is a preliminary competition to [CEC]. Seems pretty notable to me. ryanc 21:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Can you confirm this with a source that is not its own web site? Thatcher131 22:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Confirm what part? ryanc 23:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, for example confirm that thousands of engineers gather for the competition they sponsor, instead of a few dozen as might be the case with some student societies. Or that the competiton is viewed significantly by people that hire engineers (are there "scouts" or recruiters there?) Or that former members have gone on to become famous or notable in their post-graduation lives? You might call it the Theater intime test, in which a student run theater group at one college was kept because of its long history and the famous actors who got their start there. Thatcher131 06:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable student society. Sliggy 22:27, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

There are many student socities on wikipedia. That does not make it non-notable. ryanc 23:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstand my reasoning: it is a student society with no evidence of notability. 195.194.4.65 15:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)(forgot I wasn't logged in) Sliggy 15:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable. --Skeezix1000 22:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems notable enough to me - an intercollegiate association carrying out significant activities. Why is this association any different than some of the intercollegiate debating societies with entries? It seems there is too strong a trend lately to indiscriminately oppose student societies (of any stature or notariety) having entries. In a wiki-world where elementary schools are deemed "notable" enough to have entries, I see no reason why university student societies of significance cannot. What this article really needs is a good copy-edit and cleanup. Fluit 01:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable club, unless someone can point to a source that suggests otherwise. Fagstein 05:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[From CFES website] and [WEC 2007] and [WESST] itself. ryanc 19:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - I just followed those links, and see nothing more than that WESST and this competition exists, which I don't think anyone doubted. Evidence of notability I've yet to see. RGTraynor 19:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete for lack of notability. -- Kicking222 18:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:N and WP:WTH. Stifle (talk) 20:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable enough and just seems like a vainity push for a Student group.--Cini 18:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• delete no claim of notability, WP is not a directory. Pete.Hurd 21:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.